The biggest problem with everything that you say is that you assume that workers can bargain for wages or that the threat of them going elsewhere can bring about some sort of change in what they're paid. This is not the case. Especially due to the deterioration of labor unions and the fact that the Taft Hartley Act outlawed secondary boycotts, which means that workers in one industry cannot boycott and protest the actions of an employer in a different industry or sector as a means of bringing about change. This limit the ability of workers in that other industry to bargain over their wages and basically leaves them beholden to the benefits that the employer will give them. The wages of workers are not a result of what their work is worth, but rather what employers feel their work is worth in a market where their bargaining power is limited. Dishwashers, drivers and everyone else in Las Vegas is unionized (that industry has embraced unions) and because of that those workers are able to exercise a higher quality of living. They are no less replaceable than people who occupy that same positions elsewhere.
Employees can bargain for wages. The problem with this whole argument is that you assume the only way workers can negotiate pay is through collective bargaining. Thats not the case at all.
You bring up dishwashers/drivers as an example. Why. Anyone can do these jobs, that labor defines a commodity. Its no different than a gallon of gas. If you go to a gas station and they are charging $10/gallon, would you go there when someone else has gas for $4/gallon down the street, because the $10/gallon guy "feels he deserves to get paid more"? Why should it be any different for a dude looking to hire a dish washer? If all the gas stations came together and decided to charge $10 a gallon for gas, they would get in trouble with the law for price collusion. But if laborers do it, it's "collective bargaining". Price collusion is price collusion, doesn't matter if the govt signs it into law like they did with the UAW or you dress it up with a new name.
People talk about hard work... part of hard work is positioning yourself so you don't have a job that either nobody wants you to do or that literally anybody could do. You are way too focused on the paycheck side of the equation anyway. $10/hr is enough to live a decent life in some parts of the country. Like I said a thousand times we should be asking why so many basic things are becoming so expensive... not why a CEO makes so much money. If you took a CEO's pay and gave it back to all the workers, in many cases, ESPECIALLY with big corporations, it wouldn't make anywhere near the difference you think it would. I think for McDonalds employees it was something like $20 a
YEAR. For Walmart workers it was a couple thousand, but still pretty much hovering around the poverty line.
Also, your argument relies on the premise that the technological advances that have brought in more efficiency should result in an increase of CEO pay, but not worker pay. If what you said is even true. The fact is since 1978, CEO's pay has risen 728% and worker pay has risen 5.7%. Estimates range that top executive pay is anywhere from 188 to 400x that of the average worker. Being paid more is one thing, but that rate makes no sense.
No, thats not what my argument relies on at all. A CEO's pay, hell, all the executives in a company's pay, usually aren't a huge chunk of profits/revenue. The people who are making big money are the shareholders- who most times also include the CEOs of the company, but with a bunch of clauses that basically makes their stocks in the company a retirement package.
I don't disagree that there are issues with executive pay, but at the end of the day executive pay is a small part of a company's operating costs and often times isn't big enough to really make a big dent in the avg worker's paycheck. More importantly though executive pay is one of those things workers have never had any control over or say in, so it seems pretty stupid to worry about that.
Nobody is saying cashiers should make $50/hr.
But there's no reason they should be making less than they were a few decades ago despite technically being more productive. In the last 30 years, CEO pay grew about 127 times faster than worker pay. I don't see how it's because they all "deserve" it.
Thats what they've negotiated for. That's the value they have convinced executive boards and shareholders they have contributed to their companies. It's not perfect, but it is what it is. If you were applying for a job, would you want someone w/no clue what you do, a significantly lower salary than you and personal/financial incentives for docking your pay to have any kind of say in what you got paid?
Furthermore, it's not economically healthy for a tiny percentage of the population to have most of the wealth. It's just not. Poor/middle class people spend most of their money (on housing, goods, and service) and thus keep the economy going, whereas the rich don't. Having 80% of the countries wealth sitting in the bank accounts of a few wealthy people is not helping the economy in any way whatsoever. I honestly don't understand how people see this as not being a problem.
Again, even during "the good old days", everything you said aside from the % of wealth the rich held was the case. Would how much some CEO had in the bank matter if the avg American could afford healthcare, housing and college? If not, why does it matter now?
All of that matters, but despite what people (especially on the right) would like to believe, by far the biggest predictor of how much money you'll make is how much your parents made. It's not just a matter of education and how hard you work. Having friends/family in positions of power, being in with the right "network", etc. matters more than people want to admit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I don't think anyone is afraid to admit that. At least not successful people. But whenever anyone brings up how the decisions poor people make perpetuate cylces of poverty, a lot of folks here get defensive/combative/eager to change the subject. So it goes both ways, as it always has, and IMO it always should.
Despite what a lot of people think, it's easier to move up the social latter in "socialist" countries like Canada and the UK than it is here.
Having a central health care system doesn't make Canada or the UK "soooooo much more" socialist than the US. By nearly any other measure they are just as capitalist. IF anything maybe a little less given the extent of the bailouts we took on during the crash. A more honest comparison would be with China, which has heavy hands in all industries and actually identifies as socialist. Do you think it is easier to move up the ladder in China than here?
not true at all
What do you think causes a revolution friend? Regular citizens like me are now realizing how messed up the situation is....and it is no longer black people 'whining'. Poor Whites/ Middle Class Whites eyes are the ones that are popping open now. There is already great distrust in the government among them how do you think this is going to look years from now if the trend continues?
You take two kids of equal talents, equal work ethic, but give one regular parents and the other one rich parents, the rich one will do better 9 times out of 10. Thats not unfair, thats life
Foh with that shyt. I understand that some people inherit advantages but the government shouldn't exacerbate that dynamic with policy. 
